Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint path, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond what's in the schema), or what the response contains. For a list tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that includes the tool name, category tags, and endpoint path. While concise, the endpoint path adds technical detail that may not be necessary for an AI agent. It could be more front-loaded with functional guidance rather than API specifics.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' but not described), or error conditions. For a list tool with filtering options, more context is needed to use it effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Company Projects'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it lists projects for a company, unlike other tools that might list projects for other contexts or with different filters. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar list tools like 'list_projects' or 'list_companys_projects' in the sibling list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a company_id), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'list_projects' or 'list_companys_projects'. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.